Click here for the Collective Agreement from July 1, 2015 to June 30, 2019 In 1988, the New Jersey Departments of Law, Public Safety, and Education issued a memorandum to local law enforcement and education officials. These agreements were signed in communities across the state and documented the commitment of the two entities to work together as equal partners to address the state`s alcohol and other drug problems related to school-aged children. The ordinances promulgated by the State Council of Education and codified in N.J.A.C. 6A: 16-6.2 (b) 13 to 14 establish uniform national policies and procedures to ensure cooperation between education officials and law enforcement agencies. These policies and procedures are consistent with and complement the Uniform Memorandum of Understanding between Education and Enforcement Officials approved by the Attorney General and the Commissioner of Education. All schools are required to adopt and implement this revised Memorandum of Understanding for the 2018-2019 school year. A copy of the updated Memorandum of Understanding, guidelines for annual review procedures, a summary of revisions and frequently asked questions are available here. The annual review of the MOU provides an opportunity for school and law enforcement officials to reaffirm their commitment to working together as partners, discuss the effectiveness of current processes, and revise procedures as necessary. It is important that school officials are familiar with this agreement and how it promotes safe learning environments.
The 2019 Memorandum of Understanding, approved by the Attorney General and the Commissioner of Education, is a revision of the 2015 version, with previous revisions also approved in 1992, 1999, 2007 and 2011. While school districts are free to adapt the Memorandum of Understanding to include additional local by-laws to address specific questions and concerns, districts are not permitted to remove or amend the provisions of the Memorandum of Understanding under N.J.A.C. 6A: 16-6.2(b) 14ii. We have set our other two negotiating sessions for 18 and 31 March 2008. If we have not seen a significant movement towards a solution after the conclusion of these two sessions, we will be able to declare an impasse and move towards arbitration. The Commission met with the Crown on December 4, 2007 and concluded the 2003-2007 collective agreement. The state eventually agreed to delete the new article they were trying to add regarding health care benefits for retirees. We said that we had never discussed and negotiated this issue. This was a point of contention for all the custody unions. All other unions have allowed language to be included in their ABCs regarding health services for retirees.
We held on, and perseverance paid off. On December 4, 2007, we finally signed the ABC 2003-2007. We had not received the “draft” at the end of January, and President Smith inquired about the status of the CBA project. On February 4, 2008, President Smith was informed that the treaty had already been printed. President Smith told the Crown that we had not reviewed and/or approved a draft collective agreement and therefore reserved the right to revise the agreement as soon as it was received. In response to that communication, the State submitted a draft treaty containing the amendments agreed during the negotiations. The Treaty Committee will examine the Treaty in detail and respond to the State. If the draft accurately reflects the negotiations and the agreed language, we will approve it and the state will send it to the printing house. According to reports, there is a delay of several weeks for contract books to be printed.
We finally put him to bed! The Treaty Committee held its first formal negotiating meeting with the State on 25 February 2008. The meeting was declared a meeting meeting by the State. However, this meeting is considered one of our legally required meetings. We must hold at least three of these negotiating sessions before either party declares an impasse and requests arbitration. The State did not submit a formal written proposal to us, but stressed that their proposal would be virtually identical to the proposal presented to the other uniformed unions. Nor have we submitted a written proposal to the state. We agreed that the two sides would exchange formal proposals by March 11, 2008. The State indicated that it had really not been able to deviate from the proposals made and that arbitration would probably be the necessary course of action. If you have any comments and/or suggestions regarding our upcoming contract negotiations with the Crown regarding our 2007-2011 contract, please contact one of the members of the Contracts Committee. . Letter dated January 28, 2005 from the Office of the Governor of Employee Relations (OER) regarding the 2003-2007 Memorandum of Understanding The New Jersey Department of Education (NJDOE) released the new uniform state memorandum of understanding between education and law enforcement officials on January 8. PANJ negotiates employment contracts with the New Jersey Judicial Branch for the employees we represent.
The YAP has two bargaining units called the Case Occupational Unit and the Professional Supervisor Unit. The case-based unit includes approximately 1,800 probation officers, senior probation officers, senior probation officers and other job titles who perform similar duties. Professional supervisors are fewer in number, but more diverse. This unit consists of about 800 people such as senior probation officers, team leaders, supervising probation officers and many others. .
